Talk:Palace of Versailles

What ENGVAR are we using here?

I'm pretty confused on this, and ENGVAR should never be changed without good reason. British English is used here and there (centre once in the lead, metres in the Convert templates), but otherwise I didn't notice tell-tale signs of British English (armour, draught). I've been rewriting the article in a sandbox, in American English, and would like to know the consensus or thoughts of previous authors like SiefkinDR (talk) and anyone watching this page. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 12:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I see that some British English has been added, but it was written predominantly in US English. There is also a strong US tie with the subject; France was the first US ally, an alliance made at Versailles, and it was restored with US funds after World War I. so I think it should continue in US English. cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 12:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm in perfect agreement on this. Jones 2018 lays it on thick that American capital was vital to sustaining the Palace throughout the 20th century. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 07:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

The "strong national ties" argument is nonsense, but the earliest versions used AMEng, & since the main recent authors (or 2 of them anyway) want to use that, so it should continue. Johnbod (talk) 15:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Addition of a "key dates" section

I believe this article, because of its exceptional length, needs a "Key Dates" section, a brief chronology, where a reader can find quickly the dates of major events. My experience is that very few readers read a whole article from beginning to end. Many are just looking for one date or fact or information about one period, and don't want to have to read through the whole history to find it. It also helps them identify the period where they might find the information they want. It gives a lot of information in very little space. You find these sections in Notre-Dame de Paris and other articles on major cathedrals. It makes it more user-friendly and doesn't take up much space. I think the deleted "Key dates" should be restored. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk)

I have this article on my watchlist because Vami intends to take it to FA at some point, so I've been keeping a weather eye on it. That's mostly pertinent because I know that embedded lists are frowned upon by MOS (see MOS:EMBED and MOS:PROSE), and therefore any such embedded list will almost certainly be challenged and removed at FAC. The statement You find these sections in Notre-Dame de Paris is a bit misleading - you added it there, so it's not as though you're following a precedent, you're trying to create one. I understand that you think it might be helpful to the reader, but generally those kinds of lists are not appropriate within articles because the whole purpose of the article is to present and explain a subject in detail, not to give a bullet-point summary. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

If there needs to be a "key dates", then it should be in the infobox. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, and I really do appreciate the work you've been doing to clean up the article and put it into into better shape. It's greatly improved and should be a strong candidate for Good Article. That said, the Manual of Style is not against timelines; it says "Timelines and chronologies can be a useful supplement to prose descriptions of real-world histories. The content of a list is governed by the same content policies as prose, including principles of due weight and avoiding original research."

Would it work for you if the chronology or list of key events is in a box or a separate section further down in the article? I think it's too long for the infox. It could fit after the history section. I think it would be very useful for readers who just want a particular date without having to search the entire article. They're found, alongside complete text, in the guidebooks of the Palace.

Again, thanks for your good work improving and focusing this article.Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 15:59, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Collaborative effort

@SiefkinDR: Do you have a URL for the reference in this edit? –♠Vami_IV†♠ 15:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Vami - this is the URL for the information you requested.

https://chroniques.amisdeversailles.com/le-rapport-dactivite-2020-du-chateau-est-en-ligne/

Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 17:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. I've added it into the citation you added earlier. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 17:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Massie Text and Pavlovsk

The Massie text about the role of the Pavlovsk restoration as a model for Versailles is very reliable. I know Pavlovsk, the book and Ms. Massie; she's an excellent historian and the top expert on Pavlovsk. The text could probably be shortened some, but it's reliable. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Do you have access to the book? I wasn't able to get it online. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

The montage problem

I respectfully think the lead montage needs some changes. The current images are too remote and just show you roofs. They should show the chateau from a human perspective, not as viewed from an airplane. I think it should have: (1) a good picture of the garden facade; (2) The interior - the current Hall of Mirrors picture (which I think is great); (3) a garden\ picture from human perspective that shows a fountain and/or flower beds. That captures the essence. The aerial view can be incorporated later in the text, if needed. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree. --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Me too! I hate montages anyway, especially when there is blank white space below them. I would support alarge image above the dreaded infobox too. Mind you, "human perspective", let alone "flower beds" are not exactly what V is famous for! Johnbod (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I trust Siefkin with alterations to the montage. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 12:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Picture of the Roof in the montage

Why is the first image in the lead collage a picture of the roof of the Palace from an airplane? What is the architectural or historic interest of the roof? I think that first image should be an exterior view that visitors can actually see, such was the garden facade, without having to take an airplane. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 13:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

It is of course no more of the "roof" than the 1682 Perelle print a bit lower down. I think it gives the scale, basic plan, and the stretching out into the surrounding townscape and gardens rather well. Despite not having the use of planes, drones or balloons, artists of the period laboriously trained to be able to create views just like this, which then as now were regarded as the best way of displaying a whole building. It would be much better if the collage was split to individual pictures though. Johnbod (talk) 13:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think your replacement just now is an improvement - too many putti, for one thing. Let's see what others think. Johnbod (talk) 14:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I was rather taken by that aerial shot as well. It illustrates very nicely the scale of the palace, and the town built to supply it. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 08:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I just would like to find an image that captures the majesty of the Palace, and that visitors can actually see. I'm open to anything that has these qualities. Doesn't have to be a collage if we can find an image that captures this. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk)

I think there aerial view would make more sense in the section on the plan of the buildimg rather than in the lead. I'm not entirely happy with the two-image montage right now, because I don't think the image go together very well. Let me try a couple of other variants. Cordially. SiefkinDR (talk) 13:04, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Versailles built by King Louis XIV

I added the very important... built by King Louis XIV. 75.74.170.70 (talk) 16:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Use of logo in the montage

I respectfully suggest that we should not use the official logo of the Palace in our opening montage; it's confusing our page with the official page of the Palace. I also don't really see why we need to give the name of the page three times; the subject is very clearly stated. Can't we simplify this? Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Cited author continually misspelt

Cited author has been misspelt throughout as SPAWORTH and should be SPAWFORTH. I tried correcting large sections but have not succeeded nor do I have time to finish. Also imprint in his 2008 book is St Martin's Press (not Macmillan, as cited - larger publishing group though NOT the imprint inside the book) but I cannot see where to change that. Hope somebody else might complete the task. 217.155.200.241 (talk) 04:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

French château

Moved from User talk:SMcCandlish § Château

Regarding your edit here, don't you think "château" is a well assimilated loanword? Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 13:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Jean-de-Nivelle: Well, "chateau" is, with a very different meaning ('country house') from French "château" ('palace, castle, or manor of French nobility'), much like "gymnasium" ('sports and exercise building') versus German "Gymnasium" ('advanced secondary school'). If an English speaker invites you to their chateau (even if they get fancy and add the diacritic, which is unlikely), it will not be a château. The word has a very particular meaning in this context (and is not usually capitalized in French even when it precedes a geographical proper name like Versailles; French has different capitalization norms from English). Moved this discussion to article talk so others with an interest in the article are more likely to see it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

If any of my friends invited me to their château I would imagine they were being facetious. If I were friends with this young lady, I wouldn't. But "château" in both French and English can describe quite a range of properties, from relatively modest country houses at one extreme, to Versailles at the other, as well as wine-growing estates. I agree with your point about capitalisation, and the use of italics (templates) in phrases like château neuf, but "château" tout court is widely included in English language dictionaries as a loanword, even with an anglicised plural form, "châteaus". Examples:[1],[2],[3],[4]. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

As a general-usage English term with a broad meaning, it is an edge case, and more often written "chateau". (And there is no reason for a diacritic in "chateaus"; "châteaus" as a half-way confusion between "châteaux" and "chateaus", a Franglais hypercorrection that is partially mix-and-matching the norms of two different languages. Cf. "naïve" also often used in English but usually as the anglicized "naive", with "naîveté" also fairly common in English, along with the fully anglicized "naivety", while "naïvety" is another confused Franglais hypercorrection that should be avoided.)

In this particular case, we are not using "château" in the broad English derived sense of "chateau/château", but the narrow, original French "château" sense tied to the historical French nobility.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I really think you're making a false distinction. The sense in both English and French stretches from "country house" to "rural palace" and could include "castle" - although the French would be more likely to describe a medieval (defensive) castle as a château fort. Ngrams on the plural forms are fairly conclusive - the singulars, not so much. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

On reflection, I think the English sense of the word is actually more specific. In French, Windsor Castle is le château de Windsor. In English it might be called a castle, a stately home, a royal residence, or a perhaps a palace, but it would never be called a château. The English usage has connotations of Frenchness that the French word doesn't. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

If an English speaker invites you to their chateau (even if they get fancy and add the diacritic, which is unlikely), it will not be a château.

I was quite puzzled by this comment, because I couldn't imagine being invited to a "chateau" if it were not a château, except perhaps jokingly. Then I spotted the hatnote at "château". It hadn't crossed my mind before, and perhaps it's unlikely, but are you thinking "chalet" when you write "chateau", and "château when you write château? Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 12:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)